- 112 -
The above-referenced potential buyer did not intend to use
its own name initially. Obviously, the DHL name recognition, at
least during a phase-in period, was necessary for purposes of
continuity of customer patronage and was quite valuable in that
respect. Once the also well-recognized name was transitionally
introduced over time, the customer base could be maintained to
the extent possible. To a buyer without name recognition,
however, the “DHL” name would have greater value because of the
buyer’s complete lack of customer recognition and the cost of
enhancing or developing a new name and/or image. It is the value
to such a willing buyer that we must consider. Obviously, if a
buyer already has a more valuable trademark with better public
acceptance, that would not be a comparable, interested, or
willing buyer.
To a great extent, the parties experts’ (especially
petitioners’) support our factual findings that the
infrastructure, in the context of these cases, is at least as
important as the name. Of course, petitioners’ experts’ opinions
minimized the role of the name and emphasized the role of the
infrastructure or the ability to deliver the service.
Conversely, the effect of respondent’s experts’ reports was to
minimize or ignore the importance of the infrastructure or the
ability to deliver the service.
With respect to the parties’ experts whose opinions placed a
value on the trademark, they all relied on a relief-from-royalty
Page: Previous 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011